Article III of the United States Constitution (Constitution) provides for the creation of the United States Supreme Court (scotus).
Article I of the Constitution empowers Congress to make all necessary and proper laws to effect creation of the scotus. Accordingly, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789 which contains the following prerequisite for Supreme and district Court service:
“SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That the justices of the Supreme Court, and the district judges, before they proceed to execute the duties of their respective offices, shall take the following oath or affirmation, to wit: “I, A. B., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as , according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
Every sitting Supreme Court Justice has violated this oath; and refused to be constrained by the Constitution which created it (scotus).
The scotus is now poised to declare dominion over the Constitution which created it by committing its most egregious affront to the Constitution; denying certain constitutional protections in direct contradiction of its own rulings.
In CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION the scotus ruled non-profit and for-profit corporations to be persons; entitled to first amendment protection relative to free speech; however, it now contemplates denying those “corporate persons” first amendment protections relative to “free exercise of religion”. The Constitution proscribes abridging religious rights; contraceptive rights are a scotus contrivance, on which the Constitution and the Congress are silent.
It is clear, in the Citizens United ruling, that the court has substituted its rulings for the Constitution; and that it is not the scotus’ intent to interpret the law; it is to write it, hence its references to broad and narrow implications which would be more accurately termed applications.
Further, the scotus found it necessary to overturn previous Supreme Court rulings to justify the Citizens United ruling; demonstrating not only the ephemeral nature of a scotus ruling but also the reason the founders excluded the judiciary from the legislative process and vested “all legislative power” in the Congress: the voice of the people.
Also with regard to Citizens United, the Constitution places all election matters within the purview of the legislatures of the respective states. Any court hearing a constitutional challenge to election rules should have deferred to Article I of the Constitution and referred the litigants to their respective state legislators.
National political party rules are esoteric and binding only upon those who choose to be affiliated with a particular party. The judiciary is only empowered to entertain civil complaints relative to internal party operations.
Five hundred thirty five individuals and an alleged “constitutional scholar”; all of which capitulate to the court’s domination of the government, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution vests no such power in the judiciary and the only way for the judiciary to become so empowered, by the Constitution, is by Congress in accordance with Article V of the Constitution.
If your candidate claims to be “fighting for you, the troops, the American people, etc.”, you should ask him or her if that means they are willing to stop the scotus from legislating in violation of the Constitution.